Mixin' that Upmix!

A few months ago, a good chum lent me the Meet Me in St. Louis Bluray, which if anyone hasn't seen yet, is a definite must-- there are many debates about the quality of the transfer as compared to the quality of an original Technicolor print, but overall it is a great Hi Def video release in my opinion. I was a little sad to see that there weren't any new special features added to the release from the previous DVD a decade earlier. I was even more angry about the sound mixes however. When released on Standard Def DVD a decade earlier, the DVD offered two choices, either a restored mono track, or a 5.1 upmix. The new Bluray only offers the 5.1 upmix as an option.

Let's get technical for a minute for those who don't know what I am talking about. A film such as Meet Me in St. Louis came out in the 1940s when all films were mono, meaning that theaters only had the option of showing the film with one composite track. Even if a theater had two speakers, the same information would be passed out of the left and right speaker. With a 5.1 upmix for home viewing, the manufacturers have made it so that the sound will be passed out of 6 speakers (subwoofer included) and have the sound separated so different information is coming out of each speaker. While post production houses and studio restoration departments that work with old films claim to do this as discreetly as possible, it does still cause an issue. By altering the sound in such a fashion, the film is being tainted. Making such decisions are altering how the film was originally viewed. How is it possible for us as an industry that sets forth to release old films to new audiences to argue for this technique? I feel, personal opinion of course, that anyone who supports the upmixing of old films for home video release and then reprimands the acts of colorization or cropping a fullscreen film to widescreen is a hypocrite. The act of altering the sound in such a fashion is just as abominating in regards to what we stand for as film historians and preservationists and should be stopped.

Several years ago, I attended a screening at a conference. I can't name the city, year, studio, or film that I saw but remember these details well and will carry them to my grave. The head restorer of the project gave a lengthy but wonderful lecture about how the film had switched studios over the years and in order to restore this 1930s film to the way it was originally scene, a title card had been found and carefully added back into the film, while taking heed to how it fit with the score's timing of opening credits. The film started and I noticed that there were several 'layers' in the soundtrack. Uneasy, I was beginning to wonder if what I was hearing was the original mono track to the film. I shrugged it off, however, as I figured that no one would go so far as to present a film and take the time to explain how a 3 second title card had been restored and then go forward to alter the soundtrack of the film. Eventually, as a tree fell in the middle of a scene, I heard the track move from the front right speaker, around the back, and swoosh to the front left speaker. Turning my head around to follow the sound and recreating an image of Reagan spinning her head in The Exorcist I said to myself "WOAH! THAT'S NOT MONO!" I was livid, to say the least. The audience present was a group of film historians and archivists. If a sound mix was to be chosen for such a screening, it should have been a restored mono.

Going back to Meet Me In St. Louis, my anger lies in the fact that an audience should be given an option to hear an original mix or a 5.1 mix, as was the case with the original DVD release of Meet Me in St. Louis. Obviously the restored mono existed, was well received by consumers, and could have easily been included as an option on the new release. By taking away the option and forcing us to listen to the new upmix, we as consumers are being treated like children who must be taught to be grateful for what is presented to us. It is as if I went to an ice cream parlor, knew that chocolate and vanilla were available, was given chocolate instead of vanilla when I wanted the latter, and when I asked why had a finger shaken at me and was told, 'you get what you get, and you don't get upset'.

I am sure that the upmix for this film sounded beautiful, I am not arguing that-- although I will always question the integrity of it. More frustration lies in the fact that I couldn't hear it. Who buys old films on DVD and Bluray? Let's look at our demographic. Yes, there are film scholars who have a prestigious home theater setup with a sound system that can interpret the channel separation of such an upmix. But that is only a percentage of the demographic. Many home viewers are like myself. They have two speakers on their television or attached to a receiver that take this upmix and cast it out as a 2 channel Lt/Rt fold down. It is obvious that the people who headed this restoration did not keep us in mind and QC the Lt/Rt fold down of this upmix. If they had, there is no way they would have released it. Not only do the levels jump from incredibly quiet to booming loud, but the levels of M&E overtook the dialogue in several instances.

Before a side is taken on upmixing or not, one more argument should be presented. Altering sound has been a part of home video for a long time, and I know this. Before we were tinkering with upmixing, sound would be compressed before it was released on television and VHS so that the louder levels wouldn't contrast as much with the quieter ones as they would in a theater setting. So if tampering with sound has been a part of releasing these films to the home market as a staple, does this give restorers the right to upmix since the sound would have been tampered anyway? Food for thought.

Signed,
The Celluloid Avenger